Athermal division and selective suture ligation of the dorsal vein complex during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Description of technique and outcomes

Background: Apical dissection and control of the dorsal vein complex (DVC) affects blood loss, apical positive margins, and urinary control during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Objective: To describe technique and outcomes for athermal DVC division followed by selective suture ligation (DVC-SSL) compared with DVC suture ligation followed by athermal division (SL-DVC). Design, settings, and participants: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data from February 2008 to July 2010 for 303 SL-DVC and 240 DVC-SSL procedures. Surgical procedure: RALP with comparison of DVC-SSL prior to anastomosis versus early SL-DVC prior to bladder-neck dissection. Measurements: Blood loss, transfusions, operative time, apical and overall positive margins, urine leaks, catheterization duration, and urinary control at 5 and 12 mo evaluated using 1) the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index (EPIC) urinary function scale and 2) continence defined as zero pads per day. Results and limitations: Men who underwent DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC were older (mean: 59.9 vs 57.8 yr, p < 0.001), and relatively fewer white men underwent DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC (87.5% vs 96.7%, p < 0.001). Operative times were also shorter for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC (mean: 132 vs 147 min, p < 0.001). Men undergoing DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC experienced greater blood loss (mean: 184.3 vs 175.6 ml, p = 0.033), and one DVC-SSL versus zero SL-DVC were transfused (p = 0.442). Overall (12.2% vs 12.0%, p = 1.0) and apical (1.3% vs 2.7%, p = 0.361) positive surgical margins were similar for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC. Although 5-mo postoperative urinary function (mean: 72.9 vs 55.4, p < 0.001) and continence (61.4% vs 39.6%, p < 0.001) were better for DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC, 12-mo urinary outcomes were similar. In adjusted analyses, DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC was associated with shorter operative times (parameter estimate [PE] ± standard error [SE]: 16.84 ± 2.56, p < 0.001), and better 5-mo urinary function (PE ± SE: 19.93 ± 3.09, p < 0.001) and continence (odds ratio 3.39, 95% confidence interval 2.07-5.57, p < 0.001). Conclusions: DVC-SSL versus SL-DVC improves early urinary control and shortens operative times due to fewer instrument changes with late versus early DVC control.